Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

The Criteria of Embarrassment and Jesus' Baptism in the Gospel of Mark

Scholars frequently pronounce the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as one of the firmest historical facts about Jesus’ life. See, e.g., James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Vol. I, pages 350 (“This is one of the most securely grounded facts in all the history of Jesus.”); Robert H. Stein, Mark, page 55 (“Jesus’s baptism by John is one of the most certain historical facts we possess concerning the life of Jesus.”). This post will focus on the account of Jesus’ baptism in Mark and a challenge to its historicity from Neil G. at Vridar. Here is the relevant passage.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.

And he was preaching, and saying, "After me One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to stoop down and untie the thong of His sandals. I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."

In those days Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee and was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up out of the water, He saw the heavens opening, and the Spirit like a dove descending upon Him; and a voice came out of the heavens: "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased."

Mark 1:4-12.

Perhaps the most important reason scholars accept the historicity of Jesus’ baptism by John is the so-called criteria of embarrassment, which I recently posted regarding, here. (The criteria of multiple attestation also supports the baptism of Jesus' historicity, as explained here, but is beyond the scope of this post). As explained by one of its most recent proponents, “The criterion of ‘embarrassment’ ... or ‘contradiction’ ... focuses on actions or sayings of Jesus that would have embarrassed or created difficulty for the early Church. The point of the criterion is that the early Church would hardly have gone out of its way to create material that only embarrassed its creator or weakened its position in arguments with opponents. Rather, embarrassing material coming from Jesus would naturally be either suppressed or softened in later stages of the Gospel tradition, and often such progressive suppression or softening can be traced through the Four Gospels.” John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, page 168.

The embarrassment, or divergent pattern as it is also called, is that by portraying Jesus as being baptized by John the early Christians are depicting Jesus as if he were a sinner in need of repentance and forgiveness. But the early Christians preached Jesus as the Messiah, a righteous man of divine character and the perfect unblemished offering for the sins of others. There is no dispute that Mark depicts Jesus in this light or that he depicts John’s baptism as entailing “a turning away from sin.” James R. Edwards, The Gospel According to Mark, Page 31. “In the only reference to John’s baptism outside the NT, Josephus underscores the intention of reform inherent in John’s call to repentance. ‘[John] exhorted the Jews to lead righteous lives, to practise justice towards their fellows and piety towards God, and so doing to join in baptism.' (Ant. 18.116-18). Baptism is such a state of moral reform accomplished, in Mark’s words, ‘the forgiveness of sins.’” Robert H. Gundry, Mark, page 31.

Here is how Meier explains the application of this criteria to Jesus’ baptism:

A prime example is the baptism of the supposedly superior and sinless Jesus by his supposed inferior, John the Baptist, who proclaimed ‘a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.’ Mysterious, laconic, stark Mark recounts the event with no theological explanations as to why the superior sinless one submits to a baptism meant for sinners (Mark 1:4-11). Matthew introduces a dialogue between the Baptist and Jesus prior to the baptism; the Baptist openly confesses his unworthiness to baptise his superior and gives way only to when Jesus commands him to do so in order that God’s saving plan may be fulfilled (Matt 3.13-17, a passage marked by language typical of the evangelist). Luke finds a striking solution to the problem by narrating the Baptist’s imprisonment by Herod before relating the baptism of Jesus; Luke’s version never tells us who baptized Jesus (Luke 3:19-22). The radical Fourth Evangelist, John, locked as he is in a struggle with latter-day disciples of the Baptist who refuse to recognize Jesus as the Messiah, takes the radical expedient of suppressing the baptism of Jesus by the Baptist altogether; the event simply never occurs in John’s Gospel. We still hear of the Father’s witness to Jesus and the Spirit’s descent upon Jesus, but we are never told when this theophany occurs (John 1:29-34). Quite plainly, the early Church was ‘stuck with’ an event in Jesus’ life that it found increasingly embarrassing, that it tried to explain away by various means, and that John the Evangelist finally erased from his Gospel. It is highly unlikely that the Church went out of its way to create the cause of its own embarrassment.

Meier, op. cit., page 169.

Lest there be an accusation that this analysis is the peculiar product of apologetically inclined Biblical scholars, renowned classicist Michael Grant reaches the same conclusion about Jesus’ baptism:

But the forgiveness of Jesus' own sins, when he was baptized by John, has set the theologians of subsequent centuries a conundrum. For how could Jesus have been baptized for the forgiveness of his own sins when, according to the Christology which developed after his death, he was divine and therefore sinless?

The embarrassment caused by this dilemma is enough to refute modern denials that the Baptist ever baptized Jesus at all. For, once again, the evangelists would have been only too glad to omit this perplexing event; but they could not.

Grant, An Historian's Review of the Gospels, page 49.

Skeptic Neil G. has objected that the criteria of embarrassment adds no weight to the authenticity of Jesus’ baptism by John. His argument appears to be twofold. First, although Matthew, Luke and John show embarrassment, Mark does not. Indeed, Matthew, Luke and John are not embarrassed by Jesus’ baptism per se, but by its portrayal in the Gospel of Mark. Second, the reason Mark is not embarrassed by the baptism is because he has a gnostic christology, such as adoptionism or separationism, and therefore holds that Jesus was just an “ordinary man” until the Spirit of God possessed Him at the baptism. I will address his arguments in order.Divergent Patterns in Mark’s Narrative

According to Neil:

It is clear that there is not a whiff of embarrassment in Mark’s gospel over the baptism of Jesus by John. It was the absence of embarrassment in Mark’s story that embarrassed the others.

Although I agree with Neil G. that we must examine Mark in his own right, I do not think a complete dismissal of the reactions of Matthew, Luke, and John, as well as later apocryphal gospels and writers, is warranted. It is going too far to assume that Mark’s theological distinctiveness from all other Christian writers is complete. In any event, Neil is incorrect about Mark’s “embarrassment.” Perhaps he is being too literal minded. As I wrote in my earlier post on this criteria, the use of the term “embarrassment” is misleading if taken to mean the writer has to show some form of red-faced emotional embarrassment. That is not the case. The criteria rests on a broader meaning of the term embarrassment, such as is captured by the description “divergent patterns.” Mark, no different than Matthew, Mark, and John, portrays Jesus in a very positive light. To have Jesus then seek out and request a baptism for the remission of his sins is divergent from that purpose and therefore is best explained as an important part of preexisting tradition that the author of Mark was unable to ignore.

Further, Neil is wrong about the absence of “whiffs” in Mark showing some internal tension about the baptism. Just preceding Mark’s portrayal of Jesus’ baptism he records John as clearly affirming Jesus’ superiority, stating that God’s chosen one is coming and that the Baptist will not be worthy to “untie the thong of His sandals.” and that the coming one will have a superior baptism: "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit.” Here, Mark alleviates the suggestion that John is superior to Jesus because he is the one doing the baptism. Not only does John state that he is not even worthy to untie Jesus’ shoe, but Jesus’ ministry will be superior to his own. As Robert Grundy states, “Mark’s own text clearly sets up Jesus as superior to John and in no need of repentance and, hence, no need of baptism. The reference to John baptizing in water but 'he will' baptize 'with the Holy Spirit' is an extraordinary declaration, for in the OT the bestowal of the Spirit belongs exclusively to God. John’s declaration, according to Mark, transfers the bestowal of the Spirit to Jesus, once again indicating that, as the Greater One, Jesus will come in the power and at the prerogative of God.” Gundry, Mark, page 33.

Next, Mark also mitigates the baptism of Jesus by John just after the baptism itself by narrating the theophany, describing God’s power and Spirit affirming Jesus by stating "You are My beloved Son, in You I am well-pleased." I can think of no more powerful attestation of Jesus’ character that would mitigate any suggestion that Jesus was a morally flawed sinner in need of John’s baptism to repent of his sins. Accordingly, there is much more than mere “whiffs” of embarrassment. Mark mitigates Jesus’ baptism by John both just before and just after the event.

A Gnostic Christology in Mark?

Neil’s second argument is, apparently, that Mark’s christology is such that he would not be embarrassed by Jesus’ need for a baptism of repentance administered by John. These gnostic christologies, adoptionism and separationism, are related in that they -- according to Neil -- believe that Jesus was just an “ordinary man” prior to his baptism. In his own words:

Mark’s gospel has either an adoptionist or separationist view of Jesus. Adoptionists believed that Jesus was an ordinary man who was “adopted” by God as his Son when he was baptized by John. Separationists believed that the divine person of the Son of God possessed or inhabited the body of the ordinary man Jesus, so that there were two bodies in Jesus, his physical body/person and the spirit person within him. The Spirit person left the human person at the crucifixion. The evidence for this is well known in the scholarly literature and is a separate discussion.

Although Neil alludes to the “scholarly literature” he gives no references. The idea that Mark’s baptism narrative is adoptionist is unlikely. As Gundry explains,

It is sometimes assumed that the baptism teaches adoptionism, that is, that Jesus first becomes God’s Son at the Jordan. Although this view is possible, it is not very compelling. Assuming the originality of ‘Son of God’ in 1:1, Mark has already announced Jesus’ divine Sonship. The wording of the divine declaration, ‘You are my Son, whom I love,’ does not establish a relationship so much as presuppose a relationship. At the baptism the heavenly voice declares and confirms first of all who Jesus is: God’s Son, who as such is anointed and equipped with God’s Spirit to express his filial status in terms of servanthood -- indeed, suffering servanthood. The baptism signals the confirmation of Jesus’ Sonship and the commencement of his servanthood.

Grundy, Mark, pages 38-39. In any event, although it is unlikely that Mark adopts full throated adoptionism or separationism here, in the end it is irrelevant to our point. As it turns out, Jesus’ baptism by John for the repentance of sins is just as, if not more, embarrassing for adoptionists and separationists as it is for the orthodox.

Gnostic Christologies Do Not Alleviate the Embarrassment

Even if we grant Neil his unlikely understanding of Markan Christology, he has not solved the problem. In the first instance, the embarrassment is not limited just to Jesus' needing a baptism of repentance, but that it is John baptizing Jesus when Mark -- whether adoptionist, separationist, or orthodox -- affirms Jesus as John's superior. Neil's solution does not solve this problem.

Further, Neil states that the gnostic heresies of adoptionism and separationism believe that Jesus was just an “ordinary” man until the Spirit of God descended onto and into Him. Not true. According to these Gnostics, Jesus was human but not an ordinary one. Rather, Jesus was a righteous man who earned God’s choice as a vessel for His Spirit. These gnostic heresies do not believe that God simply picked a common sinner to be the vessel for the Spirit, but selected a righteous man who would cooperate with the Spirit and live a spotless life.

Some claim that the Shepherd for Hermas, displays adoptionist tendencies in its Fifth Parable:

The preexistence Holy Spirit, which created the whole creation, God caused to life in the flesh that he wished. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit lived, served the Spirit well, living in holiness and purity, without defiling the Spirit in any way. So, because it had lived honorably and chastely, and had worked with the Spirit and had cooperated with it in everything, conducting itself with strength and bravery, he chose it was a partner with the Holy Spirit, for the conduct of this flesh pleased the Lord, because while possessing the Holy Spirit it was not defiled upon the earth.

Paragraph 59.

If this passage betrays an adoptionist perspective, it counts heavily against Neil’s argument. A major emphasis of the passage is living righteously so as to be worthy of the Spirit. If the passage suggests that Jesus was a man who later became infused with the Spirit, he earned that right by living in holiness and purity. I doubt that the passage is adoptionist, however, and believe it makes a broader point about Christians living in partnership with the Holy Spirit. This is the conclusion of Larry Hurtado:

The discussion of the "flesh" indwelt by the Spirit is not really intended to make a christological point of any kind. Instead, as the angel's generalizing statement that all flesh that lives obedient to the Spirit will receive a reward indicates, the passage is really concerned with giving believers an incentive to live virtuous lives. They are to see themselves in the "flesh" indwelt by the Spirit here. This is confirmed in the angel's exhortation to Hermas in the following paragraph to keep his own flesh clean and undefiled so that the Spirit that indwells him may testify to his virtue and Hermas's flesh may be "justified" []. So this passage is almost certainly not espousing an "adoptionist" Christology.

One of the earliest unambiguous adoptionist teachers was Theodotus, a Christian in the Roman Church who helped found a schismatic adoptionist sect near the end of the second century. Peter Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, page 344. Theodotus is therefore a perfect test case for our question because he was an adoptionist who wrote about Jesus’ baptism by John. He wrote, “And for this reason the Saviour was baptized, though not Himself needing to be so, in order that He might consecrate the whole water for those who were being regenerated.” Theodotus made explicit what Mark did not -- Jesus had no need to be baptized -- and went on to add a new explanation for why Jesus was baptized -- to “consecrate” the waters for others. Very creative, but also clearly statements demonstrating “embarrassment” about Jesus’ baptism by John.

Finally, another sect of adoptionists may have been the Ebionites. Just as with Theodotus and his followers, however, the baptism of Jesus for the repentance of sins by John poses the same theological challenges for them as they did for the orthodox. As Bart Ehrman describes when discussing the Ebionites, “This kind of Christology is, accordingly, sometimes called ‘adoptionist.’ ... What set Jesus apart from all other people was that he kept God’s law perfectly and so was the most righteous man on earth. As such, God chose him to be his son and assigned to him a special mission, to sacrifice himself for the sake of others.” Ehrman, Lost Christianities, page 101. Obviously, affirming that Jesus was the most righteous living man who kept the law perfectly is in tension with Jesus being baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Thus, whether gnostic or orthodox, the baptism of Jesus would have posed theological challenges to the author of Mark. It remains an embarrassment or divergent pattern that is most likely authentic.

All told, Mark's gospel displays sufficient tendencies to invoke the criteria of embarrassment for Jesus' baptism by John, his Christology is unlikely to have been adoptionist or sperationist, but even if it were then the criteria remains a potent argument for the authenticity of the event.

Comments

It seems hard to know if Mark is embarrassed by this. That's the problem with this criteria. Sure, Mark has a high view of Jesus. But how high?

Take a look at Mk 3. Jesus' mother and brothers are portrayed as being suspicious that he might be out of his mind. Strange given that Jesus is virgin born. Unless you keep in mind that Mark offers no hint that Jesus was virgin born. Note that this is omitted by the other gospel authors.

Check Mk 13:32. Not even the Son knows the day or the hour. Sure he has a high view of Jesus, but how high? Not so high that Jesus can't be ignorant. How about Matthew. Check 24:36. "Nor the Son" is deleted. We can see that Matthew has a high view of Jesus.

Mk 10:18 "Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." His view of Jesus is high, but not as high as God. Watch what Matthew does with this text at 19:17. "Why do you ask me about what is good?" A subtle change to Jesus response puts him in a position where he's not asserting inferiority to God. Mark just does not have the high view of Jesus that Matthew does.

Look at the passion. For Mk everything is out of control for Jesus, he ends life confused with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". Mocked by thieves. In total agony or even doubt. This is weakness. Not a problem for Mark. Look at Luke. It's a totally different Jesus. "Into thy hands I commit my spirit." He's in total control. Luke has a high view of Jesus.

The point about the criterion is not that the author s embarrassed but that they would be if...

If Jesus hadn't really been baptized by John then Mark would not invent it because it's embarrassing. Therefore it must have happened.

None of the things you talk about are really related to the COE. If they are you don't bring out what it really means for Mark not to care. Presumably if it wasn't true he would not use it because it would make Jesus look bad.

That's my understanding and I may be wrong. Confidentially I have never been too sold on that criterion either, but then I don't think it has to bear all the burden of proof on its own.It's part of an over all approach.

One of the major arguments used with COE a lot is the women at the tomb. Why would they use women if women didn't weren't really the witnesses? They were in a culture where a woman's word didn't carry much weight.

High enough that, as Chris (Layman) pointed out, Mark makes a point of having JohnBapt announce beforehand just how much higher JohnBapt considered the one who was coming--whom Mark definitely understands to be Jesus.

Meta is right: you're kind of missing the point of Layman's article, which is to explain why historians typically apply the COE as inductive weight in favor of the historicity of Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist (thus also in favor of several other propositions connected to that incident by corollary, such as the existence of Jesus and the existence of John the Baptist for example); and also to address the kind of rebuttal against this argument exemplified by Jesus Myth proponents among others perhaps. Though it's hard for me to recall anyone even among hypersceptics who argues against accepting the baptism of Jesus by John except for Jesus Mythers of a certain extreme calibre. {wry g} (Plus maybe people like Schweitzer who, though agreeing Jesus must have existed, believed we can know next to nothing about him historically from the source data. And offhand, I don't recall whether even Schweitzer denied the historicity of Jesus' own baptism by John!)

However, since you mention the question of how highly GosMark's author thought of Jesus, and reported Jesus thinking of himself:

{{Take a look at Mk 3. Jesus' mother and brothers are portrayed as being suspicious that he might be out of his mind.}}

Maybe you ought to take a look at chp 3, just to make sure it's a good idea to suggest we take a look at chp 3? {g} The text does not in fact say that Jesus' mother thought Jesus was "beside himself" (as the Greek more literally reads, by the way--a phrase which can means something more colloquially if grumpily affectionate than literally that someone is out of their mind.) It says his own relatives did--which might or might not include his mother. The only reason the question is open at all is because his mother is mentioned several verses later as arriving with his brothers, at least some of whom are there to "take charge of him".

(I wonder how Neil applies his counter-COE argument against this amusing scene...? {g!})

Meanwhile, in those skipped-over verses? Jesus implies that he himself is someone who can enter the house of Satan, the ruler of the demons, tie him up, and plunder him.

Not incidentally, elsewhere in chapter 3 Jesus appoints "the twelve", not only to be with him and to be sent out by him to preach, but to have authority to cast out demons. The implication is that Jesus is the one providing them this authority; but that's an authority which can only come from someone freakishly high in the chain of command (to say the least). {g}

(Relatedly, also in chapter 3, Mark repeats the notion that the demons keep wanting to declare Jesus as the Son of God, but Jesus keeps warning them not to do so. Specifically, he warns them not to make himself known, i.e. not to reveal who he is. Who is Jesus "the Son of God"? By Mark's report, just previously at the end of chapter 2, he is "the Son of Man" who is somehow also "Lord" over even the sabbath. There's only one entity who can properly claim to be Lord over the sabbath in Jewish theology.)

As for 10:17-22; are you really sure you want us looking at that incident, too? Or have you not read all of what happens there, including what Mark reports Jesus as saying? (Hint: telling someone who has explicitly answered the question of whether he has kept the "second table" of the 10 Commandments, that he lacks only one thing, to follow such-and-such a person, can only be answered one coherent way in Jewish theology without the worst kind of idolatry. Specifically, he lacks following the first table of commandments. Which involve...?)

Jon: {{Mark just does not have the high view of Jesus that Matthew does.

Look at the passion. For Mk everything is out of control for Jesus, he ends life confused with "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me". Mocked by thieves. In total agony or even doubt. This is weakness. Not a problem for Mark. Look at Luke. It's a totally different Jesus. "Into thy hands I commit my spirit." He's in total control. Luke has a high view of Jesus.}}

You are aware that Matthew (who supposedly has a higher view of Jesus than Mark does) also includes the cry from the cross, right? So is Matthew presenting a "totally different Jesus" from Mark? (Hint: no. {g})

Also, neither Mark nor Matthew present the cross situation as being "everything out of control for Jesus". Mark is just as emphatic as Matthew that Jesus is intentionally going to Jerusalem to be given up into the hands of people who will execute him (by crucifixion no less), though GosMatt being longer that text may say a few things (numerically) more about it. One of GosMatt's extra details not included in GosMark concerns Jesus' declaration during his (or His) arrest that He could easily summon legions of angels to save Him, but that this would not serve His purposes of fulfilling the scriptures. Even in GosMark, though, Jesus is pretty much in control of His own destiny at the arrest: He knows when the arresting party is on the way, goes out to meet them (instead of fleeing), and basically talks down to the authorities in the party. (He's also the one to finally incriminate Himself in GosMark, by His own choice of when and how to do it, as much as in any other Gospel.)

While it's true that even many high-Christology Christians believe Jesus is expressing despair and doubt with the lama sabachthani, this rather overlooks the fact (admittedly unremarked on in GosMatt or GosMark) that Jesus is quoting the opening verse of Psalm 22, where the whole point of the psalmist is that despite all appearances he knows and trusts that God has not and will not forsake him but will rather vindicate him so epically that generations afterward will come to trust YHWH by considering YHWH's faithfulness to the psalmist.

(Mark and Matthew are probably aware that the circumstances of the execution resemble some important details from Psalm 22, since they phrase those details in accord with the psalm, even if they don't overtly explain that Jesus does not really doubt God's faithfulness. Luke includes those details as well, though he reports a different quote from a different psalm--one with much the same ultimate point as Psalm 22, not surprisingly. {wry g} The author of GosJohn goes so far as to quote Psalm 22 himself outright in commentary about how the events here fulfill it as a prophecy.)

From a 'character' perspective (historical or otherwise, though I would say 'historical'), the point for Jesus quoting the beginning of Psalm 22 was probably as an answer to his enemies nearby who are, in unwitting irony, putting themselves into the place of the enemies of the psalmist. It is typical practice, even among rabbis today, for a teacher to rebuke his students by quoting part of a scripture; the idea being that if they pick up on the contextual rebuke, then at least they have that in their favor, but if not then their ineptitude is even worse. Such a means of rebuking reply would not only be tactically convenient (when even a few words can only be delivered with literally excrutiating effort), but also fits the characterization of Jesus in all four canonical Gospels (where he at the very least assumes the position of teacher to the teachers of the people. Including in GosMark.)

I don't know if you adhere to this doctrine, but how does this example of the COE relate to Inerrancy of the Gospels and Divine Inspiration? Since Matthew added in John replying that Jesus is greater than him, is that not an example of either inaccuracy of lying?

Speaking as someone who doesn't adhere to "inerrancy" in the scriptures per se: I wouldn't call this a historical problem. Each of the Synoptists (and/or the Evangelist when he's reporting parallels in GosJohn) often omit and include different things when relating the same scene. As Chris noted, GosMark is very strenuous (both here and later in the text) that Jesus is vastly much greater than JohnBapt, and includes comments from JohnBapt to that effect. GosMatt includes a few more comments to that effect, but it doesn't change the situation from GosMark; and Jesus' mysterious reply in GosMatt doesn't explain things in any easy fashion, and has been as much fodder for theologians afterward as the scene as a whole.

It is entirely possible that Mark omitted it as being mysterious and topically redundant; or that he wasn't told it at all in the digest of information he reported.

While I'm at it, although Luke mentions John being taken into custody before he talks about the baptism, I have to disagree with Gundry about normal narrative expectations of readers there: they've just spent about a page reading about JohnBapt's ministry (in even more detail than the other Synoptics!) and are now told that "when all the people were baptized Jesus also was baptized". Who was baptizing the people here? Narratively it could only be John: the guy Luke was talking about twenty seconds earlier in the story! Ergo, John baptized Jesus, too.

The notice about being arrested thus makes more compositional sense, not as a chronological narrative (first John baptized all the people, then he was arrested, then Jesus was baptized with all the people by... someone... unknown...?????), but a topical flashforward amounting to: "John did all kinds of good things like this (even for Gentiles and traitors); but Herod {spit} was such a ponce that he added to his crimes by locking up this good and righteous man."

(Relatedly, all the other canonical authors agree, even GosJohn, that JohnBapt was arrested by Herod soon afterward. So Luke wouldn't be topically foreshadowing much. Similar topical foreshadowing can be seen in how some of the authors relate John's execution, too.)

It's trivially true that Luke happens to avoid directly mentioning who baptized Jesus, but by his narrative construction this could hardly be considered an advantage in avoiding embarrassment. It's far more likely that he is assuming his readers already know John did it, so he doesn't have to say specifically who when quickly passing over the event (after talking about John and his baptismal ministry.)

I can add from experience, by the way, as one of those theologians who has commented on the exchange between JohnBapt and Jesus during GosMatt's baptismal scene, that the material there doesn't help much to explain what's going on. {wry g} It still clearly has something to do with {metanoia} and sin, despite Matthew not saying John was baptizing for metanoia unto the sending-away of sins (actually, leaving that out makes it a bit harder for me to work with!); and it has something to do with fulfilling all fair-togetherness.

Which means... what? How does that make it any easier to explain?! I can make an educated guess, based on reading in theological positions established elsewhere, but it still isn't easy, and there is no consensus among exegetes as to what the hell is going on there (so to speak), including in favor of my own educated guess.

Popular posts from this blog

A visitor to the CADRE site recently sent a question about Paul's statement in Acts 20:35 which records Paul as saying, "And remember the words of the Lord Jesus, that He said, 'It is better to give than to receive'." The reader wanted to know where Jesus said this. This was my answer:

You are correct in noting that this saying of Jesus quoted by Paul is not found anywhere in the four Gospels. My own study Bible says "This is a rare instance of a saying of Jesus not found in the canonical Gospels."

Does the fact that it isn't stated in the Gospels mean that it isn't reliably from the lips of Jesus? I don't think so. The Apolstle John said at the end of his Gospel (John 21:25): "Jesus did many other things as well.If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written." Obviously, this is exaggeration for the sake of making a point, but it means that Jesus di…

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

John Lennox is a wonderful spokesman for Christianity. In many ways, he is the one Christian apologist who has acquired the mantle of C.S. Lewis in the way that he is able to take points that are sometimes difficult for those unfamiliar with thinking about Christianity and reduces them to simple arguments using metaphors and examples that anyone can understand.

Since it is the Christmas season, I thought it worthwhile to point a video by Dr. Lennox entitled "Christmas for Doubters." In the video, he responds to the idea that the early Christians believed in the Virgin Birth because they were too ignorant to understand how babies were conceived. Rather, by comparing the accounts of the birth of Jesus with the birth of John the Baptist, Dr. Lennox shows that those who wrote the Gospels understood that the authors of the Gospels did have an understanding of where babies come from, but that they understood that the births of both Jesus and John the Baptist were outside of ordin…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

William Lane Craig remains one of the most erudite and knowledgeable of today's Christian philosophers. His book, Reasonable Faith, has remained one of my favorite Apologetics tools because he lays out many of the Christian claims so clearly and cogently that only the most hardened of skeptics dismisses him or his work as being without weight. Certainly, his writings have led many people to turn their hearts toward Jesus.

We are blessed that Dr. Craig maintains a website also called Reasonable Faith with lots of information that can be accessed free of charge to make a case for Christianity. One of the great features of his website includes a question and answer section where Dr. Craig selects questions that have been addressed to him, and he generally provides really good answers that can help inform all Christians' Apologetics efforts. Unfortunately, this blog has not referenced Dr. Craig's work nearly as often as we ought, but I want to focus on one of the questions …

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

“[What] we have today is worse than ignorance of the Bible. It is contempt for it. Just about anyone who quotes the Bible, let alone says it is the source of his or her values, is essentially regarded as a simpleton who is anti-science, anti-intellectual and sexist.” ~ Dennis Prager, Jewish thinker and nationally syndicated talk show host, from I’m Back, Here’s Where I’ve Been.
There is no question that Christianity in the West is under attack from some in the public square. While Christians are still able to worship as they choose and to follow their faith (as long as they do so in private), one would need to be blind to overlook the effort by some to turn the public perception of Christianity as being backwards, ignorant and responsible for hatred. For example, in May 2011 the Huffington Post, the left-leaning Internet website, published an article entitled If You’re a Christian, Muslim or Jew - You are Wrong by Cenk Uygur wherein Uygur expressed what I cannot doubt is the view of…

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.